Skip to main content

"What Jennifer Did" is a Complex Crime Documentary Involving One Insane Daughter and Her Insane Parents

Business Insider

A Netflix documentary named What Jennifer Did shows the darker side of Asian parenting. Yes, Jennifer Pan is guilty but what caused it to happen. Jennifer was from an overly demanding Canadian Vietnamese family. She had a secret boyfriend named Daniel Wong (who was into drug dealing). These overly strict tiger parents only created a monster. Indeed, indulgent parents get nowhere. However, these harsh parents caused their daughter to also become a monster. If so, did they have it coming to them?  

If I moved to Canada, maybe I would've had a crush on Jennifer as a teenager if I knew her personally. She has the image of an intelligent woman. Maybe, my own parents would think having parents-in-law as crazy as hers would be beneficial. I was looking into the video and said, "Oh my! What a waste of a woman!" I did some research on this topic to find out how her parents are plain crazy and they probably deserved their own daughter's backlash. I'm not trying to justify the murder but I'm going to make this a warning to parents not to be either indulgent or harsh, instead be authoritative over authoritarian, or they might end up with a monster like Jennifer. 

Analyzing the very life of Jennifer may have encouraged her to do what she did until it all got worse. Here are some details from All That's Interesting and it might really be what we need to know:
Her father and mother, Huei Hann and Bich Ha Pan, exercised strict control over her everyday life and did everything they could to set her up for success. She was forbidden to attend school dances or parties and was forced to learn piano, figure skating, and martial arts. The rules paid off and Pan transferred to the University of Toronto, graduated, and got a respectable job.

In reality, however, all of these accomplishments were part of an elaborate lie. Jennifer Pan never graduated from college, let alone high school. She forged report cards and university transcripts for nearly a decade before her parents finally found out. She even had a secret boyfriend, Daniel Wong, for seven years.

I expected some deleted scenes or some things left out. As I was watched Give Up Tomorrow, there's no surprise that some scenes didn't make it into the final cut. It was probably due to time constraints but here are some interesting facts that didn't make the cut. They were probably cut out to save time or may have diverted from the topic. 

01 How Jennifer spent her free time while pretending to attend university

In the documentary, it's revealed that Jennifer failed to graduate high school and did not get into university . . . but had lied to her family that she was admitted to Ryerson.

Ho's article reveals that the lengths Jennifer would go to in order to perpetuate that lie. For four years, instead of going to class, she would go to libraries to research relevant science topics to take notes as proof she was going to school. She forged transcripts. At some points, she spent time at cafes and visited her boyfriend Daniel at his university. But she also picked up day shifts at a restaurant in her hometown, She also taught piano lessons and then bartended at a pizza parlor where her boyfriend worked as kitchen manager. When her dad asked about her studies, her mom would defend her and say, “Let her be herself."

02 Jennifer fooled her parents into allowing her to live with a friend

After pretending to attend Ryerson University for two years, her dad asked if she was still going to transfer to the University of Toronto. She lied again and said she had been accepted into the school's pharmacology program.

To keep up the charade, Jennifer suggested that she move in with a friend downtown for three nights a week. Her mom, Bich, convinced Hann it was a good idea because of Jennifer's daily commute. But Jennifer never stayed with her friend. For three days out of the week, she stayed with Daniel and his family at their home. Jennifer was also lying to Daniel's parents. She told them that her parents approved of her long stays, also rejecting their request for both families to meet.

03 Jennifer's parents followed her to her fake job

"What Jennifer Did" alludes to Jennifer feeling like she was being watched and followed by her parents but leaves out an incident involving the blood-testing lab SickKids, revealed in Ho's story. The web of lies Jennifer had constructed about her academic career slowly began to disintegrate when she said that she had volunteered at SickKids. Since the job required spending late nights at the lab on Fridays and weekends, Jennifer suggested spending more time at her friend's place.

But Hann noticed that Jennifer never wore a uniform going to work or even had a key card to get into the lab. Following those suspicions, her dad insisted that her parents drop her off at the hospital for work one day. When they dropped her off, Jennifer ran inside and then hid in the emergency room's waiting area for hours until they left. The next day, her parents called her friend who admitted that Jennifer was never stayed there. When Jennifer came home, she confessed that she didn't volunteer at the lab, she never even went to the Univerity of Toronto and had been staying at Daniel's the whole time. This focused her parents' disapproval on her relationship with Daniel.

Hann attempted to kick her out but Bich pleaded to let Jennifer stay. They confiscated her phone and laptop for two weeks, and she was only allowed to use them while her parents were around. She was also subject to surprise checks of her messages. She was prohibited from seeing Daniel and forced to quit all her jobs except the piano. Her parents also began tracking the miles on her car.

Jennifer still had not revealed that she failed to graduate high school and never went to Ryerson. 

04 Jennifer snuck out to see Daniel and was caught

The Pans' disapproval of Daniel was distinctly clear in the documentary because of his previous marijuana possession charges and lack of professional work. However, the article revealed their disapproval did not stop Jennifer from seeing him. 

In February 2009, Jennifer wrote on her Facebook, “Living in my house is like living under house arrest.” Once she regained enough of her parents' trust, she was able go out, which is when she'd see Daniel between her piano lessons.

One night she stuffed her bed full of blankets to make it look like she was asleep and snuck out to Daniel's house. The next day Bich went into her daughter's room to discover Jennifer wasn't home. This led to Hann and Bich to order Jennifer to come home, apply to college to become a pharmacy lab technician or nurse and cut off her contact with Daniel for good.

05 Jennifer concocted a story about being assaulted to win Daniel back

The documentary was clear that a part of Jennifer's motivations for the murder plot was to be able to have the freedom to see and date Daniel as she pleased. She felt like Daniel was all she had. But the article painted a darker picture of the lengths Jennifer would go to in order to get his attention.

At this point, Daniel was tired of dating someone who had to lie to her parents in order to see him, so he broke up with her and moved on to someone new named Christine. This left Jennifer heartbroken and desperate. She created an elaborate and gruesome fiction in the hopes that he'd feel moved to reconcile with her.

She told him that she opened the door for a man who showed her a police badge. She claimed that when she let him in, a group of men pushed in, overpowered her and gang-raped her in her home. Days later she also told Daniel that she had received a bullet in an envelope. She claimed that the assault and bullet missive were warnings from Daniel's new girlfriend Christine, threatening Jennifer to leave him alone.

06 Jennifer claims she was scammed in her first attempt to kill her dad

In "What Jennifer Did," it briefly mentioned that Jennifer had met with someone previously about a plot to kill her parents, but it never gave any details about the meetings she had with the person. In the article, Jennifer is painted as growing incredibly frustrated with her familial circumstances. So in 2010, Jennifer met up with a former friend from school, Andrew Montemayor, who commiserated with her over difficult fathers and imagining a life with them dead. This planted the seed for murder. He then introduced Jennifer to his roommate, Ricardo Duncan.

According to Jennifer, they devised a plan for Duncan to kill her father at his workplace's parking lot. She claimed she paid Duncan $1,500, but he ghosted her. In July 2010, she said she realized she had been scammed.

However, Duncan tells a different story, saying that when she asked him to kill her parents, he was offended and said no. Also, he stated that she only gave him $200, which he returned immediately. 

07 During the actual murder attempt in her home, Jennifer paid the hitmen

Eventually, Jennifer reconnected with Daniel to create another plan to murder her parents that involved at least two other men. Although the documentary details the events of Nov. 8, 2010 – when three men entered the Pan home, killed Bich and seriously injured Hann – Ho's Toronto Life story includes an extra detail.

Jennifer claims that one of the men, Eric Carty, had tied her hands behind her back and forced into her bedroom where she had to give him approximately $2,500 in cash. She went to her parents' bedroom where Carty found $1,100 in U.S. dollars in her mother’s nightstand.

08 The fallout of the trial on Jennifer's family, including her brother

At the end of the documentary, the audience is told that Jennifer and the men included in the murder plot are serving life sentences. Ho's story, however, goes into the emotional fallout of Jennifer's trial and how it has affected her family.

The story reported that the 2014 trial lasted about 10 months. When the jury read the first-degree murder conviction, she did not show any emotion. But when the press left the courtroom, Jennifer began to cry uncontrollably. She automatically received no chance of parole for 25 years.

The judge also ordered a no-communication order between Jennifer and her family at the request of her father and brother, Felix – the latter of whom was never mentioned in the documentary. Her lawyer said of the order that “Jennifer is open to communicating with her family if they wanted to."

Furthermore, Ho reported on Hann's victim impact statement, which read, “When I lost my wife, I lost my daughter at the same time. I don’t feel like I have a family anymore . . . Some say I should feel lucky to be alive but I feel like I am dead too.”

The story also stated that now Hann is unable to work because of his injuries, suffers from anxiety attacks, insomnia, nightmares and chronic pain. His son Felix moved to the East Coast to escape the controversy surrounding their family. He said Felix suffers from depression. Hann also addressed Jennifer: “I hope my daughter Jennifer thinks about what has happened to her family and can become a good honest person someday.”

The documentary updated that last year, Jennifer, Daniel, and two other men involved with the crime –  Lenford Crawford and David Mylvaganam – had all their convictions overturned. They are currently awaiting retrials. In an interview with CBC News in 2023, one of Jennifer's lawyers said, "Her fight is not over." 

Koreaboo

It's interesting that Felix Pan, the younger brother, was never shown for a reason. Was it because he chose to decline? Reliving painful memories like those can be traumatic. Felix probably didn't want to relive the painful memories caused by the web of deception he was too dumb not to spot. If that's true then I can't blame him. But Felix did admit that his father was a control freak of a parent. Probably, the parents were also deceptive, a trait that they unfortunately passed down to their daughter. 

It's the cause-and-effect thing. Sure, not all children born from harsh parents can become like this monster. However, watching it, the parents can't play innocent when their children grow up to become monsters. After all, who was the one who reared the children anyway while they were growing up? 

Popular posts from this blog

Rare Interview Footage of Ninoy Aquino and Doy Laurel in Japan, Reveal Marcos Years Were NEVER a Legitimate Parliamentary System

People who are afraid of shifting to a parliamentary system tend to use the Marcos Years as proof. Fearmongers on Facebook are still up to their old tricks, using the Marcos Years to say, "No to cha-cha!" Never mind that a new constitution had to be written after 1986. If anything, Article XVII was inserted in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines because it was never meant to be set in stone. Also, the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was illegal .  Here's a video of the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. and the late Salvador "Doy" Laurel. The words of Laurel here show the problem of Marcos' "parliament". Marcos' "parliament" lacked legitimacy . Where was the sporting chance of the Opposition? If it was a real parliamentary system, Ninoy would've been leading the Opposition in weekly debates against the Marcos-led government. That is if the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was the prime minister. If Cesar Vir...

A Parliamentary Philippines with Mandatory Weekly Questioning Will Be Better Than Its Mandatory Yearly Presidential SONAs

Rappler I must admit that ignorance of the difference between the parliamentary system vs. the presidential system is there. Some people still insist on the myth that the first Marcos Administration headed by President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.'s late father, Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., was really a parliamentary system. In reality. the Marcos "parliamentary" years during the Martial Law era, were still presidential (read why  here ). A simple research would show that Cesar Virata was called by the late Lee Kuan Yew, as a non-starter and no leader. LKY would know how a real parliamentary system works. Sure, it's one thing that those who consider themselves Dilawan, voice their criticisms. However, the big problem of the Dilawans is their focus on political idolatry rather than solutions. I can talk with the Dilawans all they want that we do need to shift to the parliamentary system and some of them still cry foul, say that it'll be a repetition of the first Marcos Admi...

The Foolishness of Complaining About Stupid Voters and Stupid Candidates, While Insisting the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "So Perfect"

I was looking into the Facebook page of Butthurt Philippines . Honestly, it's easy to complain but what's the use of complaining if you reject the solutions? The art produced by its administrator shows some problems. However, if the administrator here believes that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "perfect as it is" (and he seems to be throwing a "saving face" by saying it was just sarcasm, and I failed to detect it) then it's really something. It's one thing to keep complaining. Complaining can be good. However, what's the use of complaining if you reject the solutions. Even worse, complaining about the quality of candidates for the upcoming 2025 midterm elections , while still saying, "It's not the system it's the people!" Please, that kind of thinking has been refuted even by basic psychology and political science! It's really good to point out the three problems. Distractions? Check. Keeping people hopeless? ...

Don't Expect a Mahathir-Type Leader, Under the 1987 Constitution!

ABS CBN News Happy 100th birthday, Mahathir Mohamad! It's something that not so many people live up to 100, or more. The late Fidel V. Ramos passed away on July 31, 2022, at the age of 94. Ramos's advanced age may be the reason why the Omicron variant (which isn't supposedly fatal) ended his life. I'm posting this image of Ramos and Mahathir for one reason--Ramos wanted charter change back in the 1990s. However, plenty of anti-charter change commercials came in, the late Raul Roco said we only need a change in people, and we have Hilario G. Davide Jr. (who's in his late 80s but still active), and the idea that having a president who will rule for more than six years, is supposedly scary. Please, have they even thought that the late Pol Pot ruled Cambodia for just four years, but carried millions of deaths , that would make the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s 20-year reign  look tame (read here )? I've read posts on Facebook saying the Philippines just needs l...

Why I Believe So Many Filipinos (Especially Boomers) Misunderstand (and Blindly Oppose) Charter Change

Okay, I'm no political analyst or historian. That doesn't mean I should just shut up and not share my opinion. I felt like I needed to publish this piece. This is where I want to examine another issue. I've noticed some people on Facebook are sharing the quotes of Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. Some would try to do Ad Hominem attacks on me because I'm no constitutionalist (which I admit that I'm not). Just because I'm not a constitutionalist, doesn't mean, that I can't quote from the experts . Do I really need a degree in law at one of those prestigious universities in the Philippines? Sadly, some people are supposedly smarter than me but are the ones spreading nonsense.  Understanding charter change We need to see the definition first to understand why so many Filipinos, especially boomers , are so against it. The Philippine Star   gives this definition of charter change: Charter change, simply, is the process of introducing amendments or revisions to the ...